Wisdom and Creativity in Old Age: Lessons from the Impressionists

David W. Galenson
{"title":"Wisdom and Creativity in Old Age: Lessons from the Impressionists","authors":"David W. Galenson","doi":"10.3386/W13190","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Psychologists have not considered wisdom and creativity to be closely associated. This reflects their failure to recognize that creativity is not exclusively the result of bold discoveries by young conceptual innovators. Important advances can equally be made by older, experimental innovators. Yet we have had no examination of why some experimental artists have remained creative much later in their lives than others. Considering the major artists who worked together during the first decade of Impressionism, this paper compares the attitudes and practices of two important experimental innovators who made significant contributions after the age of 50 with two of their colleagues whose creativity failed to persist past 50. Unlike Pissarro and Renoir, who reacted to adversity in mid-career by attempting to emulate the methods of conceptual artists, Cezanne and Monet adopted elements of other artists' approaches while maintaining their own experimental methods and goals. For both Cezanne and Monet, recognizing how they themselves learned was a key to turning experience into wisdom. Their greatness in old age appears to have been a product of their understanding that although the improvement in their art might be painstaking and slow, over long periods its cumulative effect could be very great.","PeriodicalId":426823,"journal":{"name":"PRN: Philosophy of Art (Topic)","volume":"23 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2007-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"PRN: Philosophy of Art (Topic)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3386/W13190","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

Abstract

Psychologists have not considered wisdom and creativity to be closely associated. This reflects their failure to recognize that creativity is not exclusively the result of bold discoveries by young conceptual innovators. Important advances can equally be made by older, experimental innovators. Yet we have had no examination of why some experimental artists have remained creative much later in their lives than others. Considering the major artists who worked together during the first decade of Impressionism, this paper compares the attitudes and practices of two important experimental innovators who made significant contributions after the age of 50 with two of their colleagues whose creativity failed to persist past 50. Unlike Pissarro and Renoir, who reacted to adversity in mid-career by attempting to emulate the methods of conceptual artists, Cezanne and Monet adopted elements of other artists' approaches while maintaining their own experimental methods and goals. For both Cezanne and Monet, recognizing how they themselves learned was a key to turning experience into wisdom. Their greatness in old age appears to have been a product of their understanding that although the improvement in their art might be painstaking and slow, over long periods its cumulative effect could be very great.
老年的智慧和创造力:来自印象派的教训
心理学家并不认为智慧和创造力是密切相关的。这反映出他们未能认识到,创造力并不仅仅是年轻的概念创新者大胆发现的结果。重要的进步同样可以由年龄较大的实验性创新者取得。然而,我们还没有研究为什么一些实验艺术家在他们的生命中比其他人更晚才保持创造力。考虑到在印象派的第一个十年中一起工作的主要艺术家,本文比较了两位重要的实验创新者的态度和做法,他们在50岁之后做出了重大贡献,而他们的两位同事的创造力在50岁之后就没有持续下去了。与毕沙罗和雷诺阿在职业生涯中期试图模仿观念艺术家的方法来应对逆境不同,塞尚和莫奈在保持自己的实验方法和目标的同时,采用了其他艺术家的方法元素。对于塞尚和莫奈来说,认识到他们自己是如何学习的,是将经验转化为智慧的关键。他们晚年的伟大似乎是由于他们认识到,尽管他们的艺术进步可能是艰苦而缓慢的,但长期下来,其累积效果可能是非常伟大的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信